17 comments:

I don't really know what all mattered this week (at the DNC at least). A lot of it was just talk, same as the RNC. At the DNC, there was speak of how they would do things better than the Republicans would, that they actually have a plan (which I didn't hear much of at all), and that all we have to do is trust Obama with another four years in office to make the difference he was wanting to do when he ran for office four years ago. As for myself, I already know who I am voting for, but for the independents out there, neither of the conventions offered up many reasons for who they should vote for.

That jobs report removes the last vestiges of hope that the Obamabots held that things were going to turn around economically. I'd expect Willard to pound the "are you better off" drum for the next 60 days, or twitter it.

So the Obamabots are into a pure negative campaign and turnout drive now, and the Willardbots are into a pure stand around and wait for the other guy to fall flat on his face drive.

We've had a few stupid and pointless presidential elections over the many years... but this one is unusually stupid and pointless.

So you're not all fired up over either candidate? What's the matter with you? Obama MUST win this election, if, for no other reason, the potential openings in the Supreme Court. We have to do away with that Citizens United thing that says that corporations are people. And we cannot go back to the days of no contraception. So, maybe you guys aren't fired up, but we women are. Just you make sure you go to the polls and vote Democrat all the way or we are liable to get our revenge on all y'all for at least the next four years!

...that's pretty much it. Basically, 80-85% of the electorate is voting for their favorite letter of the alphabet.

I get a kick out of the lefties in here, jumping themselves up as "high information voters", as if there's even the slightest chance they'll switch letters. ;-)

That's one of the reasons to dump these worthless political conventions. They had their useful day, but clearly their time has passed, and now they're obviously being used to squelch speech, ideas, thought and political diversity, the things that would move the thoughtlessly frozen 80-85%.

Modern conventions are party pageants, plain and simple. I winced (slightly) at the clumsy Dem panders on God and Jerusalem, and smiled a bit at the GOP's Paulite kerfuffle.

But neither has any substance, and certainly neither makes the process(es) 'less democratic.' In the modern era, only the primaries and first-level caucuses are substantive. Delegates and floor votes are purely vestigial.

Reality check: Imagine similar floor gimmickry about marriage on the Dem side, or taxes on the GOP side. Those would have caused real eruptions - but both would be non-starters for just that reason.

And as a pageant, the Dem-fest seems to have gone significantly better - evidently it produced an unambiguous if modest bounce, more than the GOP achieved.

What also may matter is that Paul Ryan seriously undermined the MSM love affair for him. Now he's just another GOP wannabee for 2016 - and a bit crankish to boot. Which won't matter for November, but could matter afterwards.

Anon, I agree -- our party system seems to depend on people not thinking for themselves.

Rick, if they’re willing to lie to our face about something that doesn’t really matter, what will they do behind our backs about something that does matter?

And the Republican rule changes do matter -- they consolidate power in the party leadership and, in various ways, make it more difficult for a grassroots candidate to beat the establishment favorite in the future. Movement conservatives and tea party types joined the Ron Paul supporters in voting against it.

What mattered this week was a DNC that was both diverse and unified, that energized and focused Dems for the work to win, and that showed voters interested enough to watch and troubled enough by Romney that they were safe voting to reelect President Obama.

Think about all the elements of the new Democratic coalition and how none of them left Charlotte feeling compromised.

So far the polls are saying it pretty clearly: the DNC made a difference. But however the polls go, the real difference will be made by the Dems being focused. Worried that the 2008 magic was gone? It was a more sober group. But the commitment was just as strong, and they all saw that in each other. And we saw them seeing that.

The convention. It turned out that Romney suffered a dump (downwards bump) post-convention and Obama is enjoying a modest bump. Bill Clinton seems to have begun the process of popping the unreality that is the Republican sell. Deval Patrick, Ted Strickland, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Sandra Fluke (?!), Julian Castro, and Lilly Ledbetter acquitted themselves best before the largest collection of Democratic activists, ensuring that the 2016 conversation gets more ... interesting.

Outside the world, it appears that Putin's antics are losing him domestic support in the vital constituency of folks who like a shirtless president who brags of physical prowess. Sounds like a warning to Paul Ryan ...

The EU is a patient that continues its convulsions, but there may be hope that a more secure floor is placed under its performance, even as the Fed reacts to the jobs report with a substantive response. (Knowing that Obama is the strong favorite to win may allow them to escape accusations of "playing politics".) Obviously the US doesn't really have significant power when it comes to Euro Agonistes, but a beefier Fed and new Treasury Secretary could help the Obama administration put pressure on EU leaders to get their crap together. That is to say, join all the other countries to convince Germany to step away from the precipice of choosing low inflation over continued economic existence.

Let's also revisit the proposition that Mitt Romney ran a great primary campaign and did oh so great in the debates by failing to create his own brand of conservatism backed up by his bio. Instead he used the debates to take lame over the top shots at Obama. But this was soooo smart, right pundits? Because he didn't need to have a coherent agenda for his presidency, he just needed to be the "electable" guy in a year when unemployment was over N %.

Maybe he'll still win this thing but the quality of the "analysis" from the pundits is another reason we should just let these guys campaign directly to the public.

Actually, I don't think it's just "poor seniors," or rather, not just seniors who start out poor, since nursing-home expenses can wipe out just about anyone. After their savings are gone, nursing-home residents are then moved to Medicaid. I think that was the point Clinton was making, although it was just a passing reference and not that clear.

Both speeches were good for democrats and republicans, however I don't think either speech would have made the other group decide to vote for the other party. These speeches mattered for the new voters and people new to politics.